"A lot of people have looked at the impact of the marine shipping regulation change. If you take that and you put it into some climate model and you estimate the temperature change, right now you’d expect about 0.05 of a degree, 0.08 of a degree [of warming per year], and then building over a decade to about 0.1 degree. So that seems like it helps, but it doesn’t seem like it’s sufficient."
Seems like the models have quite a few holes. It made me wonder if anyone has considered making a complete list of assumptions that are baked into these models, so they can be looked at in detail.
Yes, there are big overviews of the models and how they differ - the IPCC look at the over|under predictions of all the models and look at the spread and assumptions to select a "most probable" middle ground prediction for climate going forward.
For example while the current year has been warmer than expected it's also been cooler than a number of worst case scenarios that assume faster methane releases and water vapor increases, etc.
I had a goto link for a good overview .. currently it's redirecting to:
The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is working on our digital Special Collections and the connection with OSTI. This includes all LLNL produced Technical Reports, Theses & Dissertations, and eSholarship content. We are working at making these available through OSTI. We apologize for the interruption in service.Yes, they did, it's called an "ensemble model" when multiple models are collated to account for their different modelings.
A friend of mine did his physics PhD on cloud formation at a molecular level exactly to tackle the issue some models had to account for that over longer time scales, most of the holes you can think of from the top of your head have been considered, there are many thousands of very smart people working on these models for the past 30-40 years.
The 10cm sea level rise over the next few decades isnt very relevant and the speculation about increased storms is highly location dependent and low confidence.
Far more problematic are the effects on farming of a degree rise.
Its also very degrowth to conflate energy use with CO2 emissions. Many types of energy use are time flexible (or, like AC, focused on sunny days) and thus can use solar power.
Eating so much meat, especially beef is devastating on the environment.
A single hamburger pollutes like driving an SUV for 50 miles.
For some reason the food industry catches very little attention despite the gigantic impact.
Climate scientists also try to paddle a bit the doomerism because the worst predictions make normal laypeople tune off (as is evident on a lot of comments on HN about it), ignoring those hot models was also a PR move to not make the general public become disinterested or detached since the outcomes might be much worse than they heard before.
I have quite a few friends doing their PhD in different areas of climate science here in Stockholm, all of them are much more pessimistic than the general public, they also think that bringing this sentiment out will make things worse, in their opinion it's good to give people hope.
Needless to say, I am not very optimistic about getting climate change under control.
If you have relatives in college in MI, WI, PA, NC, GA, NV or AZ who are concerned about the climate, get them to shake off the stupor.
https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to...
If you think the "business-as-usual" climate mitigations will be insufficient, it may be worthwhile to go for high-variance approaches that leave humanity better able to react relatively quickly to unexpectedly large warming.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade#Lightweight_sol...
What’s staggering to me is that the climb towards 1.5 C is of course not evenly distributed across the globe. But what it does result in is some places going up as much as 15 F+ above average since 1970.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga–Hunga_Haʻap...
The inly issue with that kind of optimization is, just like with all optimization, that by cutting out too much slack from the system you — well —don't have any slack in the system. Slack that would save the day if models are wrong or unpredicted things happen.
Here in Spain, we still plan to shut down our nuclear reactors (while many other countries are restarting their nuclear programmes) and at the same time the EU has placed crippling tariffs on Chinese EVs so the transition to electric vehicles remains unaffordable for most people.
When appeasing an ideological voter base or German shareholders remains more important than lowering emissions, we don't have much hope of making further progress.
That was my "OK, so you're completely unserious about this" moment. Governments have been subsidizing EVs, now they're cheap enough to not require subsidy, and you're cutting them off to appease the VW liars?
If we actually are in trouble the people in power can easily geo-engineer cooling the whole planet. Countries have done cloud seeding for decades, we can cool the planet if we want.
It's incredible how one can see what happens in practice but believe what people say rather than what people do.
Nor the water vapor producing volcanic eruption either.
Both are addressed in the article along with other possibilities.
The article referred to the "first study" but did not mention which study that was. According to the Wikipedia article, initial thoughts were that cooling would happen, but a later study disagrees. Trust the science you agree with.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL09...
Weather != climate.
There may have been skeptics 20 years ago, but now no one seriously doubts it.
I don't understand how technology people make decisions to deny a problem even if there is no 100% certainty. In my company, even if there is less than a 1% chance of something going wrong, we have to think of ways to mitigate it.
BUT if I did, the only real way to reduce energy usage is to reduce the population of earth drastically. People cannot be made to live in squalor willingly.
From the Georgia Guide stones: Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
For those who are keen on math, that means we need to eliminate 7.6 billion people to return to "balance".
WEF Jane Goodall, advocates reducing the global population down to 450 million https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5U7R73_9xQ
You might not agree with the Guidelines but are you going to disagree with the entire World Economic Forum?
It's even in the popular zeitgeist. Like this example where Bill Maher is advocating for population collapse:
New Rule: Let the Population Collapse | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB97iwcm_Qc
> The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves.
We need to embrace carbon-free electricity (whether its nuclear or solar or whatever) and electrify as many things as possible.
Degrowth isn't a humane solution, and it would first require the destruction of democracy as no electorate would endure it for long.
We need to do that (and even that is proving very hard, looking at the issues building out electrified ground transport and electrifying heating) and it will help a lot, but it won't be enough.
We have quite a few sectors where (economic or even feasible) non-carbon solutions aren't very forthcoming: Especially in (animal-based) food and aviation, but also manufacturing of e.g. new steel or concrete. These account for a huge chunk of emissions and reducing their emissions close to 0 in the next 20 years doesn't seem very likely. Looking at other technologies that are currently economically viable, such as solar, wind, electric cars or LED lighting, 20 years for nearly full adoption is very optimistic.
Reducing emissions there will mean also reducing consumption (and thus production, or the other way around) of those products. If we only accept superior technology as a means to "solve" climate change, we won't.
That'll very likely not mean degrowth as a whole as many sectors of the economy, especially the growing ones, are very compatible with an "electrify-everything" approach.
> the most reasonable way to
> share this is that we get an
> equal share. For far to long
> certain countries have taken
> up much more of their share.
Yes, we sure got the raw end of that deal by having more developed countries spearhead technological development.
I'd much rather be doing sustainance farming today, rather than taking my chances with the IPCC's estimate of climate change depressing world GDP by 2-10% in 2100.
Yes, developed countries should be leading the way to becoming carbon neutral or negative, e.g. with nuclear, solar, etc.
But let's not make this into some mischaracterization of early industrialized countries taking something away from the rest of us. That's bullshit.
That doesn't sound reasonable to me.
How do you to find equal?
Who implements the counting and penalties for someone taking more or less than their Fair share?
Is there anybody who is going to be left out of "we"?
I could go on...
more importantly, we should stop pointing fingers and act within our reach!
Eg: three month moving average for a north american climatic cell rather than a local daily spring tempreture.
From the NASA interview linked here:
And the first paper that came out about the volcano, they said, no, no, the normal cooling volcanic pollution is still bigger than the warming water vapor component.
One study { of this specif eruption ) estimated a 7% increase in the probability that global warming will exceed 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) in at least one of the next five years, although greenhouse gas emissions and climate policy to mitigate them remain the major determinant of this risk.
Another study estimated that the water vapor will stay in the stratosphere for up to eight years, and influence winter weather in both hemispheres.
More recent studies have indicated that the eruption had a slight cooling effect.
Which is contrary to the time sequence you claim.
FWiW the AGU Letter you did link was an early one (published less than six months after the event, sumitted earlier) and it's inconclusive talking about possibilities such as:
Unlike previous strong eruptions, this event may not cool the surface, but rather it could potentially warm the surface due to the excess water vapor.
Either way, according to the NASA interview neither marine fuel change, the El Nino event, nor the eruption combined are sufficient (as modelled, given their error bars) to explain the global increase observed.
According to the NASA interview linked here there are still other factors at play.
Also, German car manufacturers will not profit from these tariffs.
- Jane Goodall in this 36-second clip does NOT advocate reducing the global population down to 450 million
- Jane Goodall speaking at a 2020 WEF panel does NOT imply that the WEF endorses any part of her comments
Your comment falsely distorts her words, and falsely equates her with the entire WEF.
More details: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-jane-goodall-populatio...
"Policies should be designed to address the consequences of population growth built into population momentum, while at the same time incorporating measures to bring about demographic transition."
"5.31. National population policy goals and programmes that are consistent with national environment and development plans for sustainability and in keeping with the freedom, dignity and personally held values of individuals should be established and implemented."
Second, I take some issue with the APNews article because they gloss over the main point... Jane Goodall herself does believe in population reduction. This is nothing new, she has been saying this for decades. For example she is a member of the Population Matters Group in the UK (formerly Optimum Population Trust). This group and many like it are actively advocating for governments to implement policies that will put earth's human population into decline for the express purpose of climate change. So I will defend my use of that clip because it makes the point I was trying to make. Important people in power desire to reduce the population to reduce carbon emissions.
To expand my point here are other Jane Goodall quotes from the Population Matters website:
“Educating and empowering women and girls and providing family planning information enables more people to choose the size of their families. These are the kind of positive actions governments can take, and must take if we’re to address the biodiversity loss we’re facing.”
“It’s our population growth that underlies just about every single one of the problems that we’ve inflicted on the planet. If there were just a few of us, then the nasty things we do wouldn’t really matter and Mother Nature would take care of it — but there are so many of us.”
“This organisation, Population Matters, is so very important, because this is one of the most important issues that we face today. We can’t go on like this, we can’t push human population growth under the carpet. It’s been shown all around the world that as women’s education improves, family size tends to drop. I would encourage every single conservation organisation, every single government organisation, to consider the absurdity of unlimited economic development on a planet with finite natural resources.”
“The climate crisis that now threatens life on Earth as we know it results from a combination of different human activities, including the pollution of land, air and water, our reckless burning of fossil fuels, the destruction of forests, extreme poverty, and the unsustainable life styles of so many of us. And all of this is impacted by the relentless growth of human populations and their livestock. Educating and empowering women and girls and providing family planning information enables more people to choose the size of their families. And choosing to have fewer children is one of the most important choices we can make.”
As you can see she is quite outspoken on this topic and has been for a long time. Long enough for the people at the WEF to invite her her to speak knowing her position.
Links: https://news.mongabay.com/2010/12/jane-goodall-and-david-att... https://populationmatters.org/quotes/ https://populationmatters.org/solutions/
A bit faster approvals for Starship, sure. They’re getting it done.
The thing is, I agree with you, but I don't think that's actually that convincing an argument. Trump isn't going to personally reverse the ongoing exit from fossil fuels. Green energy might go faster or slower, but that doesn't necessarily matter in terms of preventing very bad outcomes. I think the high-concept paths to mitigation are a lot easier to delay than the "business as usual" eco trend.
No, he actually would [1][2][3][4]. And that's without even counting Putin. When they tell you who they are, believe them.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/28/trump-paris-climate...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/uaw-chief-slams-trump-over-...
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2024-07-19/trump-pledg...
[4] https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trumps-r...
Like the people who are getting voted for need to actually turn around and justify the vote we're making for them. And they've been failing to do that, and pointing to the thing that is clearly worse as a reason why they don't have to do better.
If it was 2008 or 2012, maybe. It would have been stupid just the same, but McCain or Romney might not have been a death spell.
This time around, 95% of messages like this are from Trump/Putin/whatever trolls trying to get their guy in, to hell with the climate. If that's not you, apologies, but good luck convincing people you're just being misguided rather than disingenuous.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/03/how-asset-managers-h...
Temperature and co2 increases are beneficial to plant growth. What is the problematic aspect you are referring to?
Just look at the production if coffee recently, its a catastrophe.
PS coffee like many other plants can't be farmed "just 100km higher up" or something. There may be easier solutions for some crops, but the reality is, the climate is not simply shifting a few kilometers up, but just changes completely so finding another suitable spot - geographically politically and all, is a real challenge.
For the 2024-25 financial year, India has exported 2.2 lakh tonnes of coffee, up from 1.91 lakh tonnes in the same period last year, showcasing a 15 percent increase.
https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/money/indian-coffee-exp...
Which should be trivially resolved by examining whether a temperate region undergoing a drought is "benefiting from increased temperatures".
You do realize of course that if someone just wanted to get Hannibal Lecter elected, they would be making claims like these to suppress his opponent's vote?
Either one candidate is better or the other. Make up your mind and do your duty.
And yeah, sure. I'm not sure why that's relevant though. The argument either holds or it doesn't.
This is not 'gaslighting from a republican troll'. This is legitimate criticism from someone who has been holding their nose and 'voting blue no matter who', for the past 4 election cycles, and wants the Democratic party to wake up and not take their voters for granted. Cause every single time they do this, they have been alienating their voters, and making races that should be slam dunks into 'close calls'.
DJT shouldn't have 'toss up' odds, but Democrats won't grow a pair and deal with him like the felon he is. Instead they keep putting it back to the voters and doing the bare minimum to try and make themselves "slightly better than the worst people on earth"
I want real options, but that doesn't happen until democrats can actually make the legitimate policy changes they've been half-assing for the last 30 years.
Right now you're just courting the self-destruction button. You're doing so on behalf of the self-destruction team, whether you're aware of it or not.
Misguided and disingenuous look the same and have the same effect.
And again, I'm not courting the self-destruction button. I'm giving you feedback on why this message is losing its efficacy, and you're ignoring that feedback. This is your wake up call that people are tired of the race to the bottom. Give me a convincing reason to vote for you. Not just a convincing reason to vote against the other side.
Democratic primaries are hella corrupt. Which is why they're not a valid 3rd button. See Pelosi pushing against people getting primaried, only to primary the more progressive wing of the party.
Human civilization and agriculture depend on a very narrow range of conditions.
> Human civilization and agriculture depend on a very narrow range of conditions.
I'm in Ohio, USA. Are you from the Arctic by any chance? Maybe Australia? How about Mongolia? Perhaps Brazil? Mozambique? We live and thrive in all of those unique areas. Very narrow conditions indeed...
Only in the sense that it's not the fall that kills you, it's the rapid deceleration at the end.
Evolutionary time (for us and our crops) is much longer than the "approximately one human lifetime" in which it will have become necessary to have adapted substantially. Genetic modification for humans and crops might work if you don't care about the entire rest of the ecosystem.
Ice core measurements go back 800,000 years, which is longer than humans have been human (about 300k). In all that time, up to the industrial revolution, CO2 only varied been about 170 and 300 ppm, its now about 420 ppm and rising so fast it's a vertical line on any graph that shows all the ice core data and is less than 8000 pixels wide.
> I'm in Ohio, USA. Are you from the Arctic by any chance? Maybe Australia? How about Mongolia? Perhaps Brazil? Mozambique? We live and thrive in all of those unique areas. Very narrow conditions indeed...
Figure 5, primary production spacial map and graph of temperature and precipitation vs output.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2725/2020/
"Where you can physically reside" != "the foundational input into your civilisation".
You may think your food comes from the supermarket, but that's just a convenient abstraction because the foundation has not been broken.
Pretty much. If it was happening over a 100k year timescale nobody would care except the geologists.
Not what I said. You argued it has been hotter before and it wasn't a problem. I had to explain to you that temperatures haven't changed this fast before, which is a strong argument for the antrhopogenic nature of the current change. It also illustrates the danger of the current phase, since the thriving ecosystems of millions of years ago didn't have to deal with such sudden change.
> I'm in Ohio, USA. Are you from the Arctic by any chance? Maybe Australia? How about Mongolia? Perhaps Brazil? Mozambique? We live and thrive in all of those unique areas. Very narrow conditions indeed...
Don't conflate narrow global conditions with narrow set of landscapes. The holocene has been remarkably stable in terms of climate and civilization thrived due to this stability.
You're clearly arguing in bad faith and I feel no need to engage further
Making sinking threats is just what the Martians want. And you still haven't even proven you're not just a Martian in disguise.
I'm sure you're converting hundreds and thousands with your philosophy of "you have to vote my way or the world will end" and "don't complain about the things you don't like to the elected officials or we might not win."
If Democrats want to have a guaranteed progressive vote, they should make good on some of their promises to the progressive wing of the party. Progressives are more reliably democratic than anyone else, and yet we take the most shit from assholes like you who think that criticism == voting for the other party.